An Upper House MP has questioned how the partiality of the panel verifying which state forests will be reserved under the federally-funded forest peace deal might be perceived.

Jim Wilkinson says at least half of the six-man panel, including chairman, Professor Jonathan West have conservation backgrounds.

Mr Wilkinson says fellow panel member Brendan Mackey once headed a science council established by the Wilderness Society.

He says Melbourne University’s Mark Bergman in 2004 signed a statement calling for all high conservation forests in Tasmania to be reserved.

He told Parliament the Government should review the composition of the panel to ensure any perceived bias or conflict of interest is eliminated.

“Peace in our forest is only going to occur if people are happy that the people who deliver the information deliver it in a fair fashion which showed no bias, a fashion which didn’t have any perception of bias,” he said.

“And if there is any of that, people are going to question it.

“That’s why I’m calling on the Government.”

Mr Wilkinson read from a book detailing the history of the Wilderness Society in which Professor West features.

“The last line on this page says ‘Once an activist, always an activist’.”

The Leader of Government Business in the Upper House has accused Mr Wilkinson of defaming the panel members.

Doug Parkinson told Parliament he does not agree with the forest agreement but he won’t support the motion to change the makeup of the panel.

“To defame these committee members in the way that he has, by going back to their backgrounds of 30 years ago…well I always thought that people can change,” he said.

“This motion is pre-emeptive in the extreme, it’s premature in the extreme.

“It predicts an outcome and in itself is biased, it’s a biased debate.”

Nelson MLC Jim Wilkinson has raised concerns regarding the makeup of the Independent Verification Group which is charged to rule on the wood supply aspects of the Forests Intergovernmental Agreement.

Mr Wilkinson said while he did not wish to reflect on the ability of the current panel members to be independent, it was apparent that some members had strong links with the environmental movement.

“I’m not saying the Independent Verification Group will do a bad job and not produce a fair and balanced outcome, but I am saying that the perception as it stands is not a good one,” Mr Wilkinson said.

“The Premier said everyone should have confidence with the process and there is a real problem if people perceive there is a conflict of interest or bias.”

Mr Wilkinson said it was akin to lining up against Collingwood in the Grand Final, only to look left and see the umpire is Eddie McGuire, dressed in black and white shouting play on.

“In order for justice to be done, it must also be seen to be done,” Mr Wilkinson added.

Mr Wilkinson said there were many who had been critical of the Forests Intergovernmental Agreement as it excluded a number of parties and processes.

“Given this, the Independent Verification Group is an opportunity to at least demonstrate some independent third party endorsement of the process, but as it stands this will not happen,” Mr Wilkinson said.

“I call for a number of further independent members to be appointed to the panel to ensure there is a balanced view on the decision making processes the group is about to undertake.”

KEY advisers to the group set up to assess the conservation merits of forests nominated for protection have yet to be appointed, less than two months before a draft report is due.

Since members of the six-member independent verification group were named in September, four subcontractors have been hired, including two former Wilderness Society employees, Sean Cadd and Virginia Young, and former Australian Forest Products Association head Allan Hansard.

Professor Jonathan West is leading the process that must also investigate how native forest reserve areas will affect wood supply requirements for the timber industry.

He said another 10 experts, mostly people knowledgable about industry development and timber availability, were required.

He said he was still hopeful of meeting the tight December 31 deadline to provide their first report.

“We’re doing our best. I don’t want it to take any longer on this than we have to but we don’t want to do a half-baked job.” He was unable to say how much funding the federal government would provide to cover the costs of subcontractors.

“It’s a moving feast.”

Signatories to the forestry statement of principles will meet today to discuss the outcomes of further research into Forestry Tasmania’s planned logging in an area earmarked for immediate protection under the forestry peace deal.

Environment groups asked two independent schedulers to investigate other options, after they recommended Forestry Tasmania be allowed to continue logging in 25 coupes within the 430,000 hectares meant to be in an interim reserve until the verification group completes its work.

The Wilderness Society has called for a compensation clause to be triggered if the logging can’t be rescheduled to an area outside the 430,000 hectares, but industry groups have warned they will walk away from the process if that happens.

Wilkinson thinks that by having at least half of this panel having conservation backgrounds shows bias. Well by following this logic that means that at least half of this panel do not have a conservation background which seems to make a balanced panel.

Posted by Roger Cameron on 11/11/11 at 07:32 AM

Jim Wilkinson may see bias, but when I look I see an array of forestry experts on: State forests of NSW (and former head of), Tasmanian forest ecology, on Australian conservation reserves, Canadian Forest Service, forest modelling, and geology/minerals relevant to forestry. If some have environmental/conservationist sympathies, could it be that is because their expertise has led them there? Of course some could be replaced by non-experts. Would that achieve “balance” for you Jim?

Posted by John Biggs on 11/11/11 at 07:57 AM

Maybe the Panel should be made up of Tasmanian Pollies,men such as Lennon,Green, Kons or Gray all well known for their integrity, lack of self interest and bias.

That was the Tasmanian way.

Posted by john hawkins on 11/11/11 at 08:08 AM

Deputy Premier & Minister for Energy and Resource Bryan Green sent this letter in September 2011:

“To clarify the IGA implementation process, under clause 36, the 430,000 hectares to be placed in informal reserves, whilst Professor Jonathon West is leading an independent review of conservation values and industry resource needs, will be protected by a Conservation Agreement under the EPBC Act between the State, Forestry Tasmania and the Commonwealth. ... The Governments will receive a report from an Independent Verification Group (IVG) headed by Professor Jonathon West, at the end of 2011 and under the terms of reference provided by Professor West, this group will advise on ‘the conserversation values contained in areas, and the boundaries of potential reserves, from within the ENGO-nominated 572,000 hectares of High Conservation Value native forest’. I stress the group will not actually recommend the future classification of these areas; just what ‘conservation values’ they hold.

Based on this advice, it will be the Government that recommends and then the Parliament that will approve the appropriate land tenure for any reserves nominated by the IVG.’

Posted by David Obendorf on 11/11/11 at 10:45 AM

This whole thing is beyond a joke. This is no way to treat a major resource-based industry. The verification process is only just getting underway, and it is supposed to conclude its work by December 1, and the state and federal governments are supposed to make its announcements by December 31. Everyone involved knows these timelines are not going to be met, and the word from those involved is that it going to be more like the end of February before the investigations are complete, if even then.
However, there is a much more important point to consider. The Prime Minister said in her media release of 7/12/2010 that a process of due diligence would be undertaken, and said this due diligence would ensure all parties would have a strong understanding of: (five points), agreed understanding between the parties of detail and definitions contained within the Statement of Principles including High Conservation Value forests; and most importantly the social and economic impact on communities in Tasmania.
This has not happened.
There has been no agreed definition of HCV forest, or agreement on what constitutes the criteria for determining HCV forest.
One thing is for sure: the native forest-based industry (especially the Special Timbers sector) cannot continue with the full 430,000 hectare lock-up proposal, and certainly not with the 572,000 hectare lock-up.
There will be no peace in the forests anyway, so why should the industry persist with this stupid process? As it is, the industry side should withdraw while the slandering of Ta Ann continues, and not return unless there is a committment to stop. It is obvious the slander of the industry will continue if any of the 430,000 hectares is not locked up, and the arts-based Special Timbers manufacturing activities and its brand is very sensitive to that kind of imputation.
We need the Legislative Council to keep examining this, and I congratulate them for it. We need them to save this government from itself, and to safeguard our future. The best way they could do this is to insist on a definition of HCV being agreed before this nonsense goes any further.

Posted by George Harris aka woodworker on 11/11/11 at 11:02 AM

What about the 4 subcontractors and the former Australian forest products association head that have been hired??? These people are not recognised conservationists. I think Mr Wilkinson would like to see ALL of the people on this panel being forestry minded. Most things that are supposed to be ‘independent’ in tasmania are bias towards their employers who are generally the gov’t with their ‘standover’ tactics, so to me true ‘independence’ doesn’t exist. We desperately need a fully ‘independent’ ICAC with the powers to root out the evil in the system, and we know for a fact that there is plenty.

Posted by suspicious mind on 11/11/11 at 11:03 AM

Jim Wilkinson must realise that FT and Private Forest owners have the FPA in its side to protect forest values as per the Forest Practices Code.
Forestry does not need another layer of investigators investigating what has already been investigated closely by FPA Specialists prior to FPP’s being drawn up by FPO’s for harvest or reservation at ther same time taking into account Special Values.
It is pointless to appoint a team led by Prof Johnothan West purely dead set on verifying a HCV fabrication of the selected 430,000 ha of State Forest which was planned as Interim Reserves as for the farcical SOP’s / IGA
The FPA Specialists deal with fauna ,flora, water hydrology and soils, geology and geomorphology. FT has Forest engineers who specialise in design and building roads bridges. Forest structure need to conform to both a standard engineering design which can often require special treatment to fit in with natural features classified as Special Values.
FT Specialists regularly liase with their counterparts employed by PWS.
Joint field surveys well in advance of proposed harvesting are often required in some of the more complex sites to decide on advice required before Forest Districts engage with production forestry.
Another layer of bureaucracy is definitely not required to further complicate what already has been examined. Tasmania already has enough conficting evidence of what is right and what is wrong. Time to move on.
ence

Posted by Robin Halton on 11/11/11 at 11:47 AM

It’s not that they have “conservation backgrounds” which is the problem, Mr Wilkinson. It’s that they are also part of the SoP and we know what a balls-up that was/is.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 11/11/11 at 12:02 PM

Jim Wilkinson’s irrational hysteria may be explained by his answers to the following questions:

1. Was Jim Wilkinson wined and dined by the pulp mill proponent at any “familiarisation” days in the lead up to the approval of the project by the Upper House?

2. Before Jim Wilkinson voted in favour of the Pulp Mill Permit legislation did he declare any family interest in the industry?

I would also note that if the forest industry had embraced the globally recognised and transparent FSC certification process, instead of custom designing its own spurious system, the debate over what constitutes HCV forests would have been resolved years ago and the industry would not be relying on multi-million dollar taxpayer funded handouts for survival.

Posted by PB on 11/11/11 at 12:11 PM

I was told a long time ago that politics was about the art of negotiation and compromise. Since then all I’ve seen is back stabbing, nit picking and hypocrisy.

I wonder how many people younger than 40 would vote these days if it was purely voluntary. I’m over 40 BTW but I see nothing to impress me.

Posted by Stephan on 11/11/11 at 12:22 PM

7 of the 10 members of the SOP process were industry representatives. Does that mean that the process was biased.
The Liberal and Labor parties have both stated that they are pro pulp mill. Does that mean that the PMAA process was biased.
Yet now half of a group identifying forests have been identified as having some form of conservation background and that is supposed to be biased. I would suggest if half are conservationists and half are industry then the process is actually balanced.
Mr Wilkinson may like to try an experiment, get a set of scales and put an equal weight on each side and see what happens.
Then try putting all the weights on one side only, label them pro logging and put a piece of paper labelled conservationist on the other side.
He will then see how skewed the dominant paradigm of Tasmanian Government is.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 11/11/11 at 12:40 PM

Why is MLC Jim Wilkinson edging himself into a matter that would see further delays to the completion of all undertakings referenced in the recent State Federal Agreement?

These delays, are seen by the likes of Forestry Tasmania and the heavily biased Terry Edwards of FIAT, as a bountiful opportunity further the logging of our HCV Forests for their own purposes and to add further corrosion to the Intergovernmental Agreement, of which has now disbursed its funds (particular to Forestry Tasmania) and Gunns Ltd.
Perhaps this explains the how and the why by Forestry Tasmania of their desire to further distance themselves from whatever the remaining obligations to them may be, “as they have received their taxpayer loot,” so now Forestry Tasmania want to be free to continue their clear-fell coupe depredations in and among the HCV Forests of their choosing.

I cannot understand how implementing the IGA can be such a drawn out affair?

So Please, MLC Jim Wilkinson (and all other independants respectively,) do allow this agreement process to embark upon its purposes in the soonest most immediate instance, so that access to logging in the nominated or proposed new conservation reserves can be sealed off from this State’s most destructive environmental ruinators?
As you may already be aware Mr Jim Wilkinson and others, the probity and bona fides of Forestry Tasmania clearly illustrate that they have no real interest or care toward hypothetical or perceived bias one way or another, they just relish these delays (and of any other delays,) so they can continue “their loss-making business as usual”- HCV Forest trespass into yon areas marked or set to be marked for conservation…..
As per the Intergovernmental Agreement.

Posted by William Boeder on 11/11/11 at 12:51 PM

Robin #7,

If this is true “The FPA Specialists deal with fauna ,flora, water hydrology and soils, geology and geomorphology”.....

How then do you explain that with respect to Coupe BA388D these “specialists” rejected my many audio proofs of the existence of Green and Gold Frogs; suggested there was no water on the coupe to accommodate such(It rains circa 2.5 metres per year and has standing sandstone depressions); and justified their view to the easily swayed CFPO by referencing a desktop survey via the DPIPWE Natural Atlas which erroneously suggests they exist only at lowland levels).The latter info was gleaned by RTI. More to come.

I have some other examples Mr Halton of the “specialists” expertise but I will be taking up too much valuable TT space. As my frog dog Henry (who does know the sound of G&G Frog} would say ‘What a load of croak’!!!!

Posted by John Powell, Myrtlebank on 11/11/11 at 03:21 PM

It is the interconnections of ET Inc, TWS and now the people on the IVG that must be seen for what it is. The Tasmanian Greens were quick to claim bias against Warwick Raverty in the RPDC Pulp Mill Assessment process that led to his resignation (after taking the advice of the S-G, I underdstand). [There are other instances where conservations and Green MPs cried ‘foul’ when Labor was in majority.]

The ethic of impartiality cannot be overlooked in this instance when the boot is clearly on the Greens foot! If it was important to highlight this need for impartiality with the stitch-ups and bias evident with the Gunns-Lennon Labor dealings over the pulp mill approvals process… surely the same must apply to IVG process and its membership.

Posted by David Obendorf on 11/11/11 at 06:04 PM

“I wonder how many people younger than 40 would vote these days if it was purely voluntary. I’m over 40 BTW but I see nothing to impress me.”

This is what concerns me about removing the compulsory aspect of voting. If you do this and only 20% of the eligible population vote, nobody is going to say “Oh my God, the people standing are of such poor quality that nobody wants to vote for them. We need to do something”.
All that will happen is that the same old useless people will be elected by 20% of the people, and they will see this as a form of validation. Nothing will change.

Posted by Johnd on 11/11/11 at 06:13 PM

#5. Beating the same old drum again George?

As it is, the industry side should withdraw while the slandering of Ta Ann continues, and not return unless there is a committment to stop. It is obvious the slander of the industry will continue if any of the 430,000 hectares is not locked up, and the arts-based Special Timbers manufacturing activities and its brand is very sensitive to that kind of imputation.

But:-

BASEL/GLAND, SWITZERLAND AUGUST 22, 2011 –/WORLD-WIRE/– WWF, the World Wide Fund for Nature, is “highly concerned ” about corruption allegations against the Malaysian Ta Ann Group, a member of the WWF’s Global Forest & Trade Network, and has announced a review of its sustainable forestry programme that involves close to 300 companies, communities and NGOs in more than 30 countries.

Ta Ann chairman, Abdul Hamed Sepawi, is a key crony and business ally of the Sarawak Chief Minister, Abdul Taib Mahmud, one of South East Asia’s longest-serving and most corrupt politicians. The WWF’s partnership with Ta Ann has recently been criticized by Global Witness because of the timber group’s responsibility for large-scale destructive logging in the Heart of Borneo, one of the WWF’s priority conservation regions.

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 11/11/11 at 08:37 PM

#13 John, the FP Specialists role is to advise the Forest Districts through the CFPO.
Your claim should have been investigated and you deserved a response!
Keep on their toes as frogs have virtually disappeared from around our area apart from the Knocklofty waterholes up the back of West Hobart. Locally we are proud of our frog havens many thanks to a very keen local Bush Care group.

Posted by Robin Halton on 11/11/11 at 08:46 PM

I have warm memories of a Private Forests Officer complaining to the FPT that the Natural Heritage Trust funds they were intending to misuse to convert some private land native bush to plantation would expire because of the damned objection we lodged.

The same PFT also advises the FPT as to whether a Private Timber Reserve application they have largely prepared for the land owner should be approved as about 99% are.

The jurisprudential mind would boggle, if it ever found itself here in Woodchip Wonderland.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 12/11/11 at 04:37 PM

Wilkinson should have been concerned about the “stacked deck” in the PAC inquiry into the efficiency of the fox task force.
What a joke… of 43 submissions, fifteen witnesses were selected to give evidence, thirteen of them either had a financial interest, or employment interest in promoting the advancement of the belief Tasmania has a fox population.
No Mr Wilkinson I haven’t forgotten that you were the Chair and also who was the Secretary.

Throw in former forest coordinator forthe WS, Sean Cadman’s name into the google search engine and you might see a pattern to the appointments on Jonathan West’s team. At least Crikey did warn us in their article bck in July ‘peace-deal-tasmanian-forest-wars-descend-into-high-farce’

Posted by kraft on 14/11/11 at 09:36 PM

What is this “Independant supposed to be” doing running and hunting with the Forestry Tasmania pack of wolves?

The last thing Tasmania needs is to have our thin on the ground independants becoming shackled to and cosying up to the “Directors of Tasmania” whom currently fill the chairs of the Directors of Forestry Tasmania?
Currently it seems that the business of “all to do with forestry in this State,” is still being dealt with in the same manner as happens when the dealers are deftly dealing out their pre-stacked deck of cards thus assigned to the appropriate stakeholders.

Posted by William Boeder on 15/11/11 at 12:07 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.